Action Item: California, Georgia and Nebraska Already Ruled it Unconstitutional and Now New Hampshire Has a Court Challenge, What About Virginia?

G.Any person required to register shall reregister either in person or
electronically with the local law-enforcement agency where his residence is
located within 30 minutes
following any change of the electronic mail address information, any instant
message, chat or other Internet communication name or identity information that
the person uses or intends to use, whether within or without the Commonwealth.

This
statute applies to both Non-Violent and Violent Offenders (all
the Registered Sex Offenders-RSO’s in Virginia)
NOT just those under VA-DOC Probation, EVERY ONE!

Remember….there is NO
“electronic” option for Virginia’s
Registered Sex Offenders so even though the statute says it, doesn’t mean it’s
a viable option.

In fact the Virginia State
Police-VSP has refused to extend the 30 minutes to 3 "business" days or to implement an electronic system when presented with
legislation (2011- HB1628and 2012- HB416).

So……..EVERY RSO in Virginia must
get in their car and drive to the closest VSP Barracks that are only open Mon-Fri
8:30-am4:00pm (no evenings, no weekends and no holidays)
and the closest location could be either 30 minutes or 4 hours away. Good luck making
the “30 minute” window!

CONCORD, N.H. (CN) - Challenging a
law that requires New Hampshire sex offenders to register their online aliases,
a civil liberties group told a federal judge that the overbroad requirements
could choke harmless speech, like giving restaurant reviews on Yelp.

Representing a New Hampshire
man "convicted of a registerable offense years ago," the ACLU brought
its federal complaint on April 21 over revisions that the state made six years
ago to its registration requirements for offenders.

House Bill 1640, which went into
effect Jan. 1, 2009, added a requirement for registered sex offenders to
regularly report to the police and divulge any "name, aliases, electronic
mail addresses, and any instant messaging, chat, or other Internet
communication name identities."

Given that New Hampshire's registration statute
"fails to distinguish between sex offenders who pose a high risk to the
public," the New Hampshire ACLU says that asking for online user names
could have a chilling effect on Internet free speech.

"If First Amendment
protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the twenty-first century, they
must continue to apply with full force to speech conducted online," the
complaint states.

The ACLU says it is overbroad to
have each of the more than 2,700 New Hampshire citizens currently registered as
sex offenders in New Hampshire to report all online usernames regardless of
whether the website is related to any crimes, or if the sex offense was related
at all to online activity.

"It essentially bans online anonymous speech that is innocent that
has nothing to do with criminality," the ACLU of New Hampshire's legal director, Gilles
Bissonette, said in an interview.

Bissonette added that online identifiers include "any account where [a
person] is permitted to set up a user profile."

Any email address and essentially any handle use to engage in online
communication, including online political groups, book and restaurant review
sites, or online medical blog sites," Bissonette added.

According to the complaint, New
Hampshire authorities have been unable to uncover
criminal activity in the 19 times the law has been applied to access records in
its six years of existence. In that same time, 32 individuals have been charged
for failing to disclose their online usernames.

The New Hampshire ACLU believes that the law is too broad and that there is
solid precedence for their case, similar laws have been struck down in California , Georgia and Nebraska.

"The harm is substantial,"
Bissonette said. "We have a first amendment right to anonymous speech and
anonymous association. The fact that they have to disclose accounts that have
nothing to with criminality kills innocent expression. The harm is real, and
the harm is substantial."

A spokesperson for the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office declined to
comment.

So why
not challenge the Virginia
law?????????

Ask the ACLU of Virginia to step up and defend
Freedom of Speech for our 21,500+ RSO’s. The Virginia statute applies to every RSO
instead of those who have a higher re-offense rate. The Virginia statute has nothing to do with
criminality but it does create a “30 minute trap” to charge most RSO’s with a new Felony.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only; I strive to provide accurate and current information.

I do not claim to be a legal resource and suggest you always consult with a licensed Attorney and the Virginia State Police’s Sex Offender Hotline (804) 674-2825 where needed.

I advocate for data-driven, proven reform as opposed to the current knee-jerk, myth-driven, one-size-fits-all method in Virginia. I do not support abolishment of the registry and that is why I do not link to other groups or sites with an abolishment goal or ones with radical tactics.

This blog is not affiliated with any other group and does not solicit donations because it is not an incorporated non-profit.